, 1887-07-21
THE SOUTHERN QUESTION.

The mugwumps can always be de-
pended upon to bring up the rear Of
the democratic procession. Accor-
dinghy Mr.. George William Curtis,
in Harpers Weekly, adds his voice,
little late, to the controversy grow
ing out Of Senator Sherman's recent
utterances on the southern question.
Referring to the political status of
the south and the denial of the cleo
tive franchise to the colored people,
Mr.. Curtis says:
"What Is the southern question?
1t is essentially one of the grayest
and most vital that can concern any
community, for it Is substantially
the question whether where, the col
Ored vote is largely in the majority,
and is cast all together, the COM
munity shall be placed under the
government of its most ignorant
class, recently emancipated from a
dehumanizing slavery, and led by
cruelty OF slavery was not good
school for the exercise of political
supremacy in an otherwise highly
civilized community, and the situa-
tion in some parts of the southern
states is one which, would 1t be re-
produced in the northern states,
would not be tolerated. Relief
would be sought and found under
law or over law. and that Is what Is
done in such communities in the
southern states. There is plainly
deprivation of rights conferred by
law. But would any humane and
intelligent republican say that the
power of the United States should
be employed to compel submission
to an endless rule like that of Moses
in South Carolina"
This Is mild mugwump way of
putting it. AS matter OF fact, the
colored voters Of the south are abso-
lutely denied the rights to which
they are entitled under the constitu-
ton and the laws, and there Is no
such thing as fair election in any
southern state, except, perhaps, Vir-
ginia. But even Mr.. Curtis mild
way Of putting it admits the whole
case. In many congressional dis
tricts and i'm some entire states of
the south the colored voters are in
majority. Mr.. Curtis says the ques-
ton is whether this majority shall
rule. His statement that the colored
people are "the most ignorant
class recently emancIpated
from dehumanizing slavery" is
apart from the case. That might
have beer good argument against
giving colored men the right to vote,
but is not good argument for deny
ing them the rights conferred by
Law. The subject was considered in
all its aspects before the adoption of
the fifteenth amendment, and it
was decided by the people that, ig-
norant as they were, and "recently
emancipated from dehumanizing
slavery" colored men should vote,
aud this right was conferred on them
in the most solemn manner. TO
deny it now, or to justify its denial
on the ground of their ignorance or
any other ground, is gross viola
ton CT good faith as well as of law.
Mr.. Curtis says II similar condi.
tion of things existed in any north
ern state ait would not be tolerated
relief would be sought under law
or over law" as is done in some
parts Of the south. That is danger
Gus doctrine. The idea that because
a majority Of the voters in any com.
munity or state are "its most ignor-
ant class' therefore, the rule lof the
majority should not be toll
Grated, but should be prevented
either ''under law or over law
lis contrary to the fundamental
idea of popular government.
1t is, OF course, greatly to be regret
ted that ignorance should prevail
anywhere, and especially 80 that
majority of the voters in any COM
munity should belong to "its most
ignorant class" but the principle of
universal suffrage contemplates that
States should be employed to COM
pei submission to an endless rule
like that of Moses in South Caroli-
nap" This is sophistry. Intelligent
and humane republicans only ask
for an enforcement of law and for
free and fair elections. The rule of
Moses in South Carolina, for good
or bad, is long since past. In its day
Mr.. Curtis justified 1t. Bad as 1t
was, it seemed to be the best that